User talk:Cupidvogel

Proposed deletion of The Will That Vanished


The article The Will That Vanished has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesn't seem to pass WP:BK, online sources are only passing mentions.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Will That Vanished
I have nominated The Will That Vanished, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/The Will That Vanished. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability
WP:V is one of the core principles of Wikipedia - "Verifiability not Truth". Even if we know something to be true, others must be able to verify it (out word is not enough). For example, you might know for true that "The Will That Vanished" is a notable and famous book by a notable author. But that is not enough to include it in Wikipedia. You should be able to prove with citations in Reliable Sources (like newspaper reviews, etc) that it is indeed so. Since such reviews would not be available online for others to verify, we are not able to prove that the book indeed meets wikipedia's conditions for notability for books. For keeping the article from deletions you can find reviews for the book in old newspapers and can add them.--Sodabottle (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems with File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg
Hello. Concerning your upload of the image File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted images obtained from other sources, without the permission of the author(s). As a copyright violation, File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg falls under the speedy deletion criteria and has been deleted.


 * If you believe that the image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under a free license then you should do one of the following:


 * If you have permission from the author, leave me a message explaining the details and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the  or released into the public domain leave me a message at my talk page with a link to where I can find that note.
 * If you hold the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:File:Pamela prati ac89.jpg.
 * Or alternately drop me a note about this file if I have misunderstood something. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with trying to use such an image here is that (in line with the slogan under the Wikipedia logo) the policy is not to keep such images. The first criteria of the non-free content policy largely prevents the use of copyrighted images of living people. It is almost always deemed that a free image could be created - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:"A photo exhibit shows Shaheed Udham Singh being taken away from Taxon Hall after the assassination of Michael O’ Dwyer".jpg
Thanks for uploading File:"A photo exhibit shows Shaheed Udham Singh being taken away from Taxon Hall after the assassination of Michael O’ Dwyer".jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 11:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Caisson-blueprint.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Caisson-blueprint.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Mayur (talk•Email) 10:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Howrah Bridge during construction in 1942.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Howrah Bridge during construction in 1942.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Steelwork.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Steelwork.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

helpme

Non-free rationale for File:Stockholm.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stockholm.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Stockholm2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Stockholm2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problems: Meghnad Saha
Hello. Your edits to Meghnad Saha have had to be removed pending clarification of copyright status. It was discovered last month that a substantial amount of text was duplicative of the 1995 book Saha and His Formula, which is copyrighted by the Universities Press India. If you represent the copyright owner, we can (of course) utilize their text in this way. Please see WP:IOWN for the processes for verifying your connection to Universities Press India. If you have permission from the copyright owner, we can work with that as well, but will need you to forward it to the Wikimedia Foundation so that it can be evaluated for license compatibility. Please see Requesting copyright permission for the procedure. If you have questions about either of these processes, you are welcome to come by my talk page. I am very happy to further explain.

Alternatively, if you are not in position to license the material, you are welcome to rewrite the content entirely in your own words, except for brief and explicitly marked quotations. See Close paraphrase for more.

There is more information, including an example, at the talk page of the article.

Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. As far as I remember, I did not duplicate content, just took reference to it and rewrote it in my own language. In a few places where I might have duplicated, I have explicitly cited the book as the reference. That does not warrant removing the entire article on copyright issues. - Cupidvogel (talk)

Non-free rationale for File:Howrah Bridge during construction.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Howrah Bridge during construction.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 November
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Aparajito page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=632027335 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F632027335%7CAparajito%5D%5D Ask for help])

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Amazon Original Website.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Amazon Original Website.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 20:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Tendentious editing at Vinayak Damodar Savarkar
Please note that Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral point of view. The kind of praise and emotive wording that your edit here heaps on the subject ("tirelessly", "fearlessly" "whole-heartedly") is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and contrary to our policy WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not for expressing your admiration of any person or subject, but for neutral description only. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC).

Important Notice
TrangaBellam (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Page block
This long addition is very awkward. In the first place, how is it that you're on first-name terms with Professor Audrey Truschke? Is she really "Audrey" to you? Secondly, you use unreliable sources such as The Wire. At a glance, I see a source from 1867. And now you're edit warring to force your text into the article. You have been page-blocked from Audrey Truschke for two weeks. Please feel free to discuss your proposed changes on the talkpage in the meantime. (It would have been appropriate to do that as soon as you were reverted, instead of reverting back.) You are only blocked from the article, not its talkpage. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC).


 * I'm afraid I misspoke about The Wire not being a reliable source; it is. I wrote in too much haste; what I wanted to point out about The Wire was that you misused it, Cupidvogel. Its review, that you refer to, mentions the absence of footnotes in Truschke's book on Aurangzeb, but not as a criticism, and not at all to show that she's "leaving the user with no option to cross-check her observations with contemporary sources or works by other eminent historians, and tries to ignore the view of many Hindus of Aurangzeb being a religious bigot", as you write. It merely says there are no footnotes as an example of the book being a popular work aimed at the lay reader. The review is highly positive, which nobody could have dreamed from the way you use it. This is tendentious editing at its finest. I see makes this point, along with many others, here on Talk:Audrey Truschke. But I'm sorry I said The Wire was unreliable; that was a mistake on my part. Bishonen &#124; tålk 10:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC).
 * There is no correlation between lack of footnotes and its readability to the lay user, footnotes never force the lay user to read them, they can and they often do ignore them and read along, it is only for the interested user that the footnote offers a way to trace the author's viewpoint and find substance in it. The reasoning is ridiculous, particularly in light of the fact that the reviewer - Mukhia, had authored similar books with similar viewpoints on Aurangzeb, and hence he naturally agrees to Truschke's point of view, and this arrangement hardly qualifies as "objective" or "unbiased" review, after all two flat-earthers can write lengthy documents explaining their point of view, and both can endorse each other, that doesn't tantamount to an objective review.. Sample this - if Leonardo Da Vinci draws a portrait of Jesus Christ and proclaims that is is important, and Michelangelo does the same, and both endorse each other on their shared viewpoint, then each of this incident is used a reference in respective articles on Vinci and Michelangelo to drive home the point that Jesus Christ is important and hence he drew his portrait, how will it sound like? In particular, absence of footnotes reduces accountability to zero, giving the author a freehand in concocting lofty tales, which Truschke gleefully does, for example, she cites Maasir-i-Alamgiri (a primary source) and dismisses its mentions of Aurangzeb's religious excesses as "exaggerated", without offering any evidence in favour of its dismissal, and her claim on interviews on websites that Aurangzeb's subordinates hatched those tales to please the king begs the question as to why they would have to hatch stories of temple destruction to ply a supposedly secular and tolerant ruler. This kind of academic dishonesty becomes possible when citations are not offered, that has zilch to do with the interests of the lay-reader.
 * I am still trying to understand - on what ground could an admin block me here from editing the article? A supposedly long rant on a talk page? That is no ground at all, considering the fact that the rant had no abusive words in it. Edit-warring? There was one round of edit-warring, the first one was me reinducting the deleted passages with ample citations, and they were promptly reverted back by the original user with vague reasoning, which I reinducted with more citations, some of which are in contention here (perhaps rightly so). So basically one round of edit-warring. That's it? This is ground for blocking me? This becomes possible when there is a small coterie of admins and authors who have a particular idea of a topic and are determined to use their might in blocking any view contrary to that, and subjecting new citations to imaginary standards (not only the book cited must be well reviewed, but all reviewers should be uniformly positive about it, and all those reviewers should be of substance, and that substance should be proven by more people of substance, and it goes on) so rigorous that no new addition is possible. May be I will try and draw attention of more admins to the topic and verify if this is blatant misuse of privilege.
 * It makes no difference if you think Mukhia's argument is "ridiculous". You're referring to Mukhia and making them say something they didn't say; that's what matters. And now you're arguing with your own source? And you hazard that I may have blocked you for "a supposedly long rant on a talkpage"? That's strange. I explicitly blocked you for this edit to the article, as I said in my block notice (did you not click on my links there?) and for restoring it here after it had been reverted. When I blocked you, you had never visited Talk:Audrey Truschke. As for drawing more admins' attention to what you believe is my blatant misuse of privilege, absolutely, why not? You can explain all about it in a new unblock request, which will bring another uninvolved admin here to review it. Or, for still more admins' eyes on the matter, you can post a complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I should caution you, though, that that will also bring your own actions under scrutiny. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:48, 4 March 2022 (UTC).

March 2022
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Audrey Truschke. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you continued edit warring at Vinayak Damodar Savarkar while you were blocked from a different article for edit warring, you are now blocked from editing all articles. Please see WP:RECIDIVISM. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also note that if you go on like this you're facing a site block. Tendentious in the extreme. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Akshaypatill (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)